There is no "addictive speech" exception to the First Amendment. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 253 (2002) (quoting Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973) (per curiam)). That is also true of hateful speech and of speech that is aimed at "radicalizing" people, as in Brandenburg itself. Such negligence liability would "open the Pandora's Box" and "have a seriously chilling effect on the flow of protected speech through society's mediums of communication." To be sure, even otherwise protected speech might potentially be restrictable if the restriction passes strict scrutiny.